Why Ramesh Bhiduri Episode is More Troubling Than the Outrage Over Abusive Words

Was Mr. Bhiduri not conscious of the fact that any slip-up from the side of the ruling party would be exploited fully by an eco-system adept at such a game? Many explanations are being given including abusive language used by the alleged victim Danish Ali. However, that does not absolve him of spoiling the wonderful mood of the nation on a successful culmination of 27 years of struggle to provide a level playing field to women of Bharat; and entering into a new era of a new confident Bharat symbolised by the new parliament building.

However, I am also aware of the shenanigans of this tearful victim card holder Danish Ali as I have been on too many debates with him for years to not know his nature. He belongs to a tribe of panellists who revel in insulting Hindu dharma, Hindu Gods and Hindu beliefs. It is the secular and Islamist tribe that jokes about Hindu Gods whether Bhagwan Ram, or Krishna or Shiva or Ganesh; that tittered and smirked on TV screens over these jokes, provoked Hindu and Hindutva-minded Muslims. I am a witness to their behaviour when the Triple Talaq bill was being discussed - how they behaved with women who supported a ban on Triple Talaq on camera and behind cameras, including their own Muslim sisters. Many readers would remember those debates. Today when a person like Danish Ali cries over his religion being called, it is ironic, to say the least. Respect and tolerance in not one-way street.

What is abusive?

This makes me ask another question – what is abusive? Is abusing a person with slurs more abusive or abusing a whole community continuously for years and its faith more abusive? Is calling for ‘Eradication of Sanatan Dharma’ more abusive, insulting and dangerous or abusing an individual? How many of the so-called liberal media persons and outraged secular politicians condemned this virtual genocide call unequivocally? It is the worst kind of insult to keep calling Hindu society intolerant and fascist which opened its doors to the most oppressed and exploited irrespective of their faith. The very people that guarantee a genuine secular respectful society, respecting all faiths are being abused day and night despite living history in neighbouring countries where minorities have been converted, killed, looted raped and their numbers have fallen to non-existence levels.

The majority of these same set of people were and are justifying the call to annihilate Hindu/ Sanatan Dharma on TV screens day and night. The people who gave this call are treated as warriors of freedom of speech!

The people who smirked and laughed at the discovery of centuries-old Shivling in Gyan Vyapi mandir (Yes, it was a mandir – once a consecrated mandir, always a mandir), calling it a fountain are the same people who are outraged at Bhiduri’s words. The people who tittered and ridiculed Hindus resulting in a provoked Nupur Sharma quoting their own scriptures saw her condemned to life of solitary confinement and death threats, while the provocateurs faced no consequences and remained TV panellists and media stars enjoying full freedom.

What is more abusive? Shouting ‘Jai Shri Ram’ or ‘Har har Mahadev’ that does not insult anyone, that does not provoke any rational person, nor imposes one’s supremacist views on others, or shouting on loudspeakers five times a day that one God was supreme to all others and all other gods were false gods? But the former provokes riots and latter, if questioned and requested to pipe down, results in STSJ calls?

This reminds me that the same Danish Ali was so provoked by Bharat Mata ki Jai that he disrupted an official function! From when did Bharat Mata ki Jai become a provocative slogan that a devout Muslim could not hear?
We must ponder over this strange interpretation of secularism. No founding father of the Indian constitution had ever dreamt of such a situation, nor any leader of free Bharat. It is a perversion.

Why the TV debates on the Bhiduri episode are irrational?

The debates about Ramesh Bhiduri are presented as an insult to the august institution – the Parliament. Anchors keep reminding the audience that Mr. Bhiduri should not have used such language in parliament. This is irrational. No public figure should ever use such language anywhere on public platforms media or parliament. This kind of thinking results in TV channels allowing abusive shouting banshees on TV screens because they think TV debates can be sub-standard and appeal to the lowest denominator. Why are they allowing such voices in their debates?

I appeared in 2 or three debates on the Bhiduri episode. Every time the major political parties, including the ruling party ended up in shouting matches, tu-tu-main-main and whataboutery. Yesterday, a Samajwadi party on Times Now, virtually threatened a female BJP spokesperson in a language which reminded me of the molestation that Sushri Mayavati suffered from Samajwadi Party goons in the very precincts of Vidhan Sabha guest house. Had it not been for a BJP MLA, Shri Brahma Dutt Tiwari and his friends, one shudder to think what would have happened to her. Why was he allowed to continue on the panel?

When I said, Bhiduri could have responded in a better manner when the other person was allegedly abusing PM Modi, I can say from my own experience that it can be. I have gone through all this for ten years. I have never fallen into an opposition trap. I have boycotted two panellists who were always abusive and gave up many debates. Finally, they went into oblivion. I know how to respond when the other side is abusive. Surely, a mass leader like Bhiduri and others know it much better than me. Whenever I complained to the anchor why such people are called, their sheepish response was, what to do? They contribute to TRP, or the parties are not sending good spokespersons. This is no excuse for the media.

Electronic and print media has to understand what is at stake. The very faith of millions on democracy and political parties is at stake. This TV or youtube studio cynicism when transmitted to people at large, will hurt our democracy.

Is it not possible to break this vicious cycle of abuse?

Is it so difficult for major political parties to sit together and agree that “Enough is enough; We will hold our tongues and take action against any spokesperson or leader who lowers the dignity of public discourse.” They may not agree on policies and programmes. But as representatives of the oldest living civilisation of the world, known for its ‘Sanskriti’ is it so difficult to agree to disagree civilly?

Is it so difficult to say, let bygones be bygones? Let us draw a line that from tomorrow, we will shun this shameful way of debating issues and behaving like illiterate abusive street goons.

When I gave this suggestion in a debate, not one political party leader agreed or supported my suggestion. Nor did the TV anchor pick up this idea. This is the real tragedy of public discourse today. This is why the Bhiduri episode is not about an MP using foul language against another MP; it is about the continuous lowering of the dignity of our public spaces. We the people are only helpless bystanders. The political parties and media have to decide whether their behaviour will help them win people’s confidence or make them lose confidence in the political parties and the media.